Should Democratic Underground switch to seven-person juries?

[markpkessinger]

105. I am unsure how I feel about this . . .

I have served on a fair number of juries since the jury system was implemented. The biggest problem I have observed -- and I'm not sure a 7-person jury addresses it at all -- is that far too many alerts are made not on the basis of any actual violation of terms or community standards, but rather on the alerter's strong disagreement with the opinion expressed. It is admittedly a very fine line sometimes, but great majority of cases, at least of the ones I've observed, juries have made pretty good calls as to where that line should be drawn, I have seen a few occasions where, by virtue of the luck of the draw in jury selection, it has appeared that the decision was made less on the basis of community standards than on the majority of jurors' agreement or disagreement with the content of the allegedly offending post.

One of the things I like about the current system is precisely the way 3-3 splits are handled. As I said, the line between controversial content and violation of community standards is often very fine. I have been on both sides of 3-3 splits, but even in cases where I voted to hide a post, but it was left standing as a result of a 3-3 split, I appreciate the fact that the system errs on the side of allowing posts to stand. I don't always like or agree with the results in those cases, but I think it strikes a pretty good balance overall. And I think it helps DU to avoid falling into the Huffington Post syndrome, in which community standards and even terms of use often appear to be completely arbitrary.

I guess, as I write about this, I do realize how I feel. I think I prefer to keep the system as it is, with the understanding that no system is perfect and no system will ever satisfy everyone.